R2.8 to Ashcroft HD R380 stumpy Conversions

donb

Well-known member
ossibly, that is my hope, but will find out when we start the mock up. If not, going to design a birds mouth type weldment that will sadle over the top of the frame rail as well as down the inside of the rail and make the big Miller earn its keep. I know some interested parties would prefer a 100% bolt in kit. May be possible but I have seen the offset/cantilever mounts others make for different engine installs trying to make something work with the original frame side mounts and dont like the look, the engineering, and dont believe they will hold up to this application. We'll have to see. Whatever we come up with, will have them made and sell them as part of the kit.
Great to hear. The reason for the 100% bolt in would be for those that have a galvanized chassis and don't want to mess with welding. But pre-made and engineered weld in mounts that properly dampen the R2.8 is probably the best way to do it. The 2 sided mounts sound just as HD as the clutch, throwout lever, rad/IC and R380.
 

Uncle Douglas

Well-known member
Great to hear. The reason for the 100% bolt in would be for those that have a galvanized chassis and don't want to mess with welding. But pre-made and engineered weld in mounts that properly dampen the R2.8 is probably the best way to do it. The 2 sided mounts sound just as HD as the clutch, throwout lever, rad/IC and R380.
I get it. Have welded on many galv chassis in the past and while not ideal is certainly totally workable and can be touched up with HUB's 97% cold galv spray. It will never rust if done that way. http://galvanizer.hubindustrial.com/065-017-015.html
We have a case of this stuff in the shop for touch ups.
 
Last edited:

Mack

Active member
I get it. Have welded on many galv chassis in the past and while not ideal is certainly totally workable and can be touched up with HUB's 97% cold galv spray. It will never rust if done that way.
Would agree with that. I welded mounts on my galv frame about 7 years ago and no hint of rust. Has been sitting as a bare frame for the last 3 years. A quality zinc spray does the trick.
 

Z.G

Well-known member
Has anyone doing the 2.8 considered the MT82 6 speed from the puma trucks? I'd much prefer that box to a rebuild R380. I'll be doing an MT82 behind a 300 on my build
 

Overlander

Well-known member
That was discussed Z. The verdit was the MT82 wasn't up to the task, nor was a standard R380. For the Cummins, only the HD R380 from Ashcroft is being considered as fit to task.
 

Z.G

Well-known member
Interesting, I guess the 2.8 does put out quite a bit more torque than the mustang they used it in.
 

Uncle Douglas

Well-known member
Interesting, I guess the 2.8 does put out quite a bit more torque than the mustang they used it in.
Captain Sarcasm,
Get me a trans to mock up from (can be seized) and we'll get it done.
Thought you are locked into a 300 ?
Prefer to only ask Chad to go down paths with an obvious financial upside to recovering the development costs as casting custom bellhousings is somewhat time consuming and expensive.
 
Last edited:

Z.G

Well-known member
Haha, I wasn't asking for myself, just the general public. I am definitely locked into a 300, I was just wondering why the MT82 wasn't an option.

Also wasn't being sarcastic for once! The 2.8 is at 385 lb-ft and the mustang that it was in is at 280
 

abraded

Member
From what I gather the Fotons in China that the R2.8 was designed for have a Getrag transmission (5 speed?)--does make me wonder if there is any bellhousing similarity.

The current stock tune on the R2.8 is 310ft/lb right?

Per the internet, "Ford's version of the 6MTI500 (MT82) is specific to the Coyote , although, the 6MTI500 is also used by Land Rover but has a 5.44 first gear ratio. The 6MTI500 was a 4 way collaboration to reduce cost which is why a brand new MT82 only cost $2500. The 6MTI500 was rated at 500nm or 369ft lbs of torque at a gross vehicle weight of 4250kg or 9350LBS!!!! (Gotta love those Germans). At that vehicle weight, the torque rating could be twice that in a vehicle that weighs 3800lbs or well over 750ft lbs... It is assembled in China (to reduce cost again)."

Probably wouldn't be an easy bolt in solution, but 6 speeds with a good ratio spread would certainly be attractive...
 

brdhmltn

Well-known member
mt82 doesnt have a removable bellhousing. It's integral to the front casting. Machining nightmare and extremely custom. Also its a totally different tailhousing from the mustang. Custom to Land Rover application. Which means an adapter plate is the way to go. Only makes sense for people doing full Puma rebuilds. Need a Puma bulkhead to make it work. Any change and you're into it for moving Tcase, new driveshafts, etc. The dreams of millionaires. I'll leave it to those waaay richer than me. Id love to see it done!

Edited after replies below: I looked into the MT82 + cummins. It would be expensive on a pre puma bulkhead truck. You would have to order transmissions from other countries as castings are land rover specific. Bellhousing is a no-go for cost reasons, per above. Adapter plate does not exist yet, and you would have to commit to buy a MT82 to make an adapter. Google-foo suggests Land Rover may not have used the same bolt pattern as the mustang. I stopped looking there as the costs/risks were going to be way outside what I can handle. Everything is possible with enough money and I hope someone does it! If you have the puma stuff (interior and puma lt230 location) already it should only be the cost of an adapter plate and engine install stuff. I have a 2.5NA. Too risky for me. Costs could have spiraled.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Z.G

Well-known member
mt82 doesnt have a removable bellhousing. It's integral to the front casting. Machining nightmare and extremely custom. Also its a totally different tailhousing from the mustang. Custom to Land Rover application. Which means an adapter plate is the way to go. Only makes sense for people doing full Puma rebuilds. Need a Puma bulkhead to make it work. Any change and you're into it for moving Tcase, new driveshafts, etc. The dreams of millionaires. I'll leave it to those waaay richer than me. Id love to see it done!

There's a company in the UK selling adapters for the 300 to the Mt82, which is what the truck in our shop has(non puma bulkhead).

I don't want to derail this thread too much more, my apologies
 

brdhmltn

Well-known member
I was thinking only about the cummins + mt82. Have not researched it with a 300 at all and have no clue how the measurements would change. I would follow that thread if it gets started. I haven't seen any north american work with defender mt82's.

To get the thread back on track, my bellhousing arrived safe and sound on Friday!
 

Attachments

Overlander

Well-known member
No sir. Rover slaves are know for their short lifespan. This is one of the items in question. Right now the targeted unit is one used in Jeeps and Dodge diesel 2500 trucks
Thanks Doug. I was sitting on a brass sleeved rover master and was going to have a slave sleeved as well. Won't pursue that now
 
Top